STOP SOCIALISM!

 

 STOP SOCIALISM!

"Socialism is good until you run out of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY." ~ The Late British PM Margaret Thatcher 

The quote referenced is commonly attributed to Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, though it’s not a direct quotation. It reflects a criticism of socialism or welfare policies, suggesting that such systems rely heavily on wealth redistribution and could become unsustainable once the resources or wealth of others are depleted.

The phrase is often used in debates about the limits of government intervention in the economy, highlighting concerns that high levels of taxation and redistribution could discourage investment, productivity, and personal responsibility. However, proponents of socialism or mixed economies might counter that well-managed systems can generate wealth and ensure fairness, rather than merely depleting resources. It’s a significant point in the broader discussion of economic models and their long-term viability.

Stopping Socialism with

DAVID KENDAL

powered by Surfing Waves

#Socialism #Socialists

#Socialism #politics #communismf

41 years ago 221 Marines and 21 Sailors were killed in a terrorist attack in Lebanon.

   

41 years ago 221 Marines and 21 Sailors were killed in a terrorist attack in Lebanon. Word has it ISRAEL turned him into dust this week.

1st Posted on September 22, 2024

https://snip.ly/ky3dao

#Marines #Lebanon #terrorists 

The Obamas Also Are In The Epstein Files

 

The Obamas Also Are In The Epstein Files

Guess who else's name showed up in the EPSTEIN FILES ... The 1st Half White President ... Barack Hussain Obama ... and his wife MICHELLE ... Ooooo ... Now what???

Yes, the recent release of the Jeffrey Epstein files by the Department of Justice confirms that both Barack and Michelle Obama are named in the documents. However, a conservative analysis must go beyond the mere fact of their inclusion and examine the context, the media's handling of the information, and the stark contrast between the political left's performative outrage and its silence when its own icons are implicated.

What the Files Actually Show

On February 14, 2026, Attorney General Pam Bondi officially announced that the Department of Justice had released all available files related to Jeffrey Epstein, complying with the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by Congress . The release includes millions of pages of records, images, and videos, along with a list of more than 300 high-profile individuals whose names appear in the documents .

That list prominently includes former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama . Also named are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and numerous other Democratic luminaries .

Now, here is where conservative intellectual honesty requires precision. The Justice Department explicitly states that inclusion in the files "does not imply wrongdoing, or even direct contact with Epstein" . Some individuals had "extensive direct email contact" with Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, while others were referenced in documents "including press reporting that on its face is unrelated to the Epstein and Maxwell matters".

Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche emphasized that "no records were withheld or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary". This is a significant statement: the Trump administration did not shield anyone, regardless of party affiliation, from being named.

The Conservative Framework: What This Really Means

From a conservative perspective, several points demand attention.

First, the Obama name appearing in these files is newsworthy and should be investigated. Conservatives have long suspected that Epstein's network extended deep into elite circles on both sides of the aisle. The release confirms that the Obamas are among the hundreds of names a fact that cannot be dismissed. While mere mention is not proof of wrongdoing, it raises legitimate questions about the nature of any contact, the context of any communications, and the extent to which the Obama circle intersected with Epstein's world.

Second, the media's selective interest is revealing. For years, the left-wing press has demanded "transparency" and "accountability" regarding Epstein's associates but primarily when the names were Republican or simply famous. Donald Trump has been named repeatedly in earlier document dumps, and those headlines dominated cable news for weeks . Now that the Obamas, Clintons, and Harris appear on an official DOJ list, the coverage is notably more cautious, more hedged, more eager to explain away rather than investigate.

Conservatives notice this double standard. When the left controls the narrative, Epstein is a story about powerful men exploiting women. When the names include Democratic royalty, Epstein becomes a story about "context" and "guilt by association."

Third, the timing and handling of the release merit scrutiny. The files were released under a transparency law passed by Congress, implemented by a Republican administration. The Obama-Biden years, by contrast, were marked by secrecy, stonewalling, and the infamous "Clinton body count" jokes that were never funny because they reflected a genuine pattern: powerful Democrats seemed to skate while others faced consequences . Epstein himself received a sweetheart plea deal in 2008 when Acosta then a federal prosecutor was criticized for being too lenient. But let us not forget that Epstein's original let-off occurred under a Republican administration, and his 2019 arrest happened under Trump's watch. Neither party has clean hands.

Fourth, the conservative principle of equal justice demands that no one be above scrutiny. If Barack Obama's name appears in these files, he owes the public an explanation. What was the context? Was there any communication? Did he or Michelle ever meet Epstein? Were they aware of his activities? These are not unreasonable questions. They are the same questions conservatives have been asking about Trump, about Clinton, about everyone on that list.

The Silence from the Left

What is most striking, from a conservative vantage, is the deafening silence from progressive activists and media figures who built careers on Epstein outrage. Where are the demands for Obama to "release his flight logs"? Where are the social media campaigns demanding that Michelle Obama testify before Congress? Where are the cable news panels grilling Democratic operatives about what the Obamas knew and when they knew it?

They are nowhere to be found. Because for the left, Epstein was never about justice for victims. It was about weaponizing a tragedy against political opponents. Now that the files include their own icons, the narrative shifts to "context" and "innocent until proven guilty" concepts conservatives have been urging all along.

Conclusion: Transparency Cuts Both Ways

The release of the Epstein files is a victory for transparency, period. Conservatives should welcome it not because it damages Democrats though it may but because sunlight is the best disinfectant. If Barack and Michelle Obama are innocent of any wrongdoing, they have nothing to fear from the truth. If their names appear in innocuous contexts, they should say so clearly and move on.

But the American people deserve straight answers. The same questions conservatives have asked about Trump must now be asked about Obama. The same scrutiny applied to Clinton must now be applied to Harris. Anything less is not journalism; it is partisan advocacy masquerading as news.

From a conservative perspective, the Obama name appearing in the Epstein files is a fact. What that fact means remains to be seen. But the left's sudden embrace of caution and context, after years of reckless accusation, tells us everything we need to know about who was really seeking justice and who was simply seeking scalps.

#Epstein #Obama

The ID Double Standard: What You Need Identification For in America

 

The ID Double Standard: What You Need Identification For in America

The debate over voter ID laws has become one of the most contentious and revealing battles in American politics. The left insists that requiring identification to vote is an insurmountable barrier a modern poll tax designed to disenfranchise minorities, the elderly, and the poor. The right responds with a simple, commonsense question: if identification is required for virtually every other significant transaction in American life, why should the most sacred act of citizenship be the sole exception?

The answer, from a conservative perspective, is that the left's opposition to voter ID has nothing to do with protecting access to the ballot and everything to do with preserving the conditions in which electoral fraud can flourish. To understand why, one need only examine the extensive list of everyday activities that already require government-issued identification. The contrast between what Democrats demand for voting and what they accept for ordinary commerce is not merely inconsistent; it is revealing.

Travel and Transportation

Perhaps the most obvious category is travel. Every commercial airline passenger over the age of 18 must present a valid government-issued ID before boarding a flight. The Transportation Security Administration is uncompromising on this point. No ID, no flight. This applies equally to executives, students, retirees, and celebrities. It applies in every state, regardless of racial demographics or income levels. And yet the left, which has not launched a single protest against this requirement, expects us to believe that asking for the same ID at a polling place constitutes an act of oppression.

Amtrak does not require ID for most tickets, but passengers must present identification to pick up tickets at will-call windows or to receive refunds for unused tickets . International travel, of course, requires a passport a more stringent identification standard than any voter ID law has ever proposed.

Driving and Vehicles

Operating a motor vehicle requires a valid driver's license. This is not controversial. It is understood that operating heavy machinery on public roads carries risks that justify verifying the operator's identity and competence. The same progressives who oppose voter ID have no problem with laws that require drivers to prove who they are before getting behind the wheel.

Registering a vehicle requires identification. Purchasing automobile insurance requires identification. If you are pulled over by law enforcement, you are legally required to present your license, registration, and proof of insurance. Failure to do so can result in fines, impoundment of your vehicle, and even arrest. All of this is accepted as normal and necessary.

Financial Transactions

The financial sector operates on the assumption that identification is essential to prevent fraud, money laundering, and identity theft. Opening a bank account requires multiple forms of identification. Applying for a credit card requires identification. Cashing a check at a bank where you are not a customer requires identification. Taking out a mortgage, refinancing a loan, or even renting a safe deposit box all require government-issued ID.

The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to verify the identity of anyone opening an account. This is federal law, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, because everyone understands that anonymous financial transactions enable criminal activity. Yet when the same logic is applied to voting an activity with profound consequences for the entire nation the left suddenly discovers a passionate commitment to anonymity.

Employment and Benefits

Showing up for work requires identification. The I-9 form, required for every new employee in America, demands that workers present documents establishing both identity and work authorization. This includes a driver's license, passport, or other government-issued ID. The left does not protest this requirement. Unions do not demand that workers be allowed to verify their own identity through "self-attestation." Employers do not argue that asking for ID is a form of discrimination.

Applying for government benefits requires identification. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing assistance, and every one of these programs requires applicants to prove who they are. The left, which champions these programs, has never suggested that requiring ID for benefits access is a form of voter suppression. Yet when the same identification standard is proposed for voting, the narrative suddenly shifts.

Age-Restricted Activities

The list of activities restricted by age and therefore requiring proof of age is extensive. Purchasing alcohol requires ID. Purchasing tobacco products requires ID. Purchasing lottery tickets or entering a casino requires ID. Buying spray paint or certain over-the-counter medications requires ID in many jurisdictions. Entering bars, nightclubs, and many concerts requires ID.

The left accepts these requirements without complaint. They understand that society has a legitimate interest in verifying that individuals are old enough to engage in certain activities. They do not argue that asking a 19-year-old to show ID before buying beer is an unconstitutional burden. They do not claim that requiring identification disproportionately harms minorities or the poor. But when the same principle is applied to voting an activity with age restrictions (18+) and citizenship requirements—the left's commitment to verification magically evaporates.

Housing and Utilities

Renting an apartment requires identification. Landlords universally require prospective tenants to provide government-issued ID as part of the application process. This is accepted as reasonable due diligence. Utility companies require identification to establish service. Turning on electricity, gas, water, or internet service requires proving who you are and that you can be held accountable for payment.

None of this is controversial. The left does not organize protests outside apartment complexes demanding that landlords accept "self-attestation" of identity. They do not file lawsuits against utility companies for discriminating against those without ID. The requirement is accepted as a normal part of adult life.

Healthcare and Medicine

Picking up a prescription requires ID in most pharmacies. This is not because pharmacists are racist but because controlled substances are, well, controlled. The same progressives who oppose voter ID have no objection to requiring ID to obtain pain medication or other prescription drugs. They understand that verifying identity prevents diversion and abuse.

Applying for health insurance, whether private or public, requires identification. Checking into a hospital requires identification. Even visiting a patient in many hospitals requires presenting ID at the reception desk. All of this is accepted as standard operating procedure.

Firearms and Self-Defense

The irony here is particularly rich. Purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer requires passing a background check, which requires presenting identification. This is federal law, supported by the very same Democrats who oppose voter ID. The left argues that identification is essential to ensure that convicted felons and the mentally ill do not obtain weapons. They are correct. But they refuse to apply the same logic to voting, where the stakes control of the entire government are arguably higher.

In many states, obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon requires not only identification but fingerprints, photographs, and extensive background checks. The left supports these requirements. They understand that verifying identity and eligibility is essential when public safety is at stake. But when the integrity of elections is at stake, they suddenly discover that verification is unnecessary and oppressive.

The Conservative Conclusion

The list goes on. Registering for school requires ID. Getting married requires ID. Adopting a child requires ID. Serving on a jury requires ID. Entering a federal building requires ID. The ubiquity of identification requirements in American life is not an accident or a conspiracy. It is a rational response to the reality that identity matters, that fraud is possible, and that verification is the only reliable protection against abuse.

The left's selective opposition to voter ID reveals their true priorities. They accept identification for everything else air travel, financial transactions, employment, benefits, age-restricted purchases, housing, healthcare, and firearms because those requirements serve purposes they support or at least do not oppose. But voting is different. Voting determines who holds power. And the left has concluded, correctly from their perspective, that maximizing turnout by any means necessary, including the elimination of basic verification, serves their electoral interests.

Conservatives see through this. We understand that if identification is necessary to buy a beer, board a plane, open a bank account, or obtain government benefits, it is certainly necessary to cast a ballot. We reject the premise that requiring ID is an act of oppression when applied to the franchise but an act of responsibility when applied to everything else.v

The ID double standard is not an oversight. It is a strategy. And the conservative response must be to insist, consistently and unapologetically, that the most fundamental act of citizenship deserves at least the same level of verification as buying a six-pack of beer. Show your ID. It's not oppression. It's citizenship.

#SaveAct #Voting #ID #VoterID #VoterFraud

The Big Three Auto Makers Took a 50 Billion Dollar Write Down Last Week

The Big Three Auto Makers Took a 50 Billion Dollar Write Down Last Week

In Regards to that 50 Billion Dollar Write Down the Big 3 Auto Makers took last week, because no one wants them and they are unreliable in cold weather, as well asthe tracking systems on them that people also don't want.

It reminds me of a family in Florida bought their Son a used EV Sedan. They paid $11,000 for the car ~ Not bad. Shortly after buying it the battery went out. They found out the replacement battery cost $14,000. Also, the batteries can't be recycled. 

BTW, that EV Sedan weighs more than a gas powered Ford F150. Imagine the wear and tear on the roads if all cars were EVs.

#ElectricVehicles #ElectricCars #EVs #Ford #Chrisler #GM #GeneralMotors

Automakers regroup as market shifts after $50 billion EV debacle

BORDER DRAMA AGAIN

OPINION

BORDER DRAMA AGAIN

Here we go again. Democrats have the Government shut down again because they want to return to Biden’s border and immigration policy which allowed 20 Million ILLEGALS in from 170 countries with no vetting. When they kept saying "We need a 'Border Bill' that was the GASLIGHT to allow more ILLEGALS to enter the country (5,000/Day in the small print). One of the reasons Trump was elected was the border. He shutdown the border without a 'Border Bill'. He simply ENFORCED THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS.

One party governs on the rule of law and what the Constitution says. The other party can't interpret policy, uses emotion, lies, changes rules, and make it easier to cheat.

Policy wise, I don't know HOW anyone can explain why they vote for today's Democrat with a straight face and/or sounding like AOC sounded in Munich, Germany. Apparently TDS is a real thing.

They shut down the Government because they want changes to I.C.E., which is funded to the end of the year already. The people that won't get paid is DHS, Secret Service, and COAST Guard. Democrats are working harder for ILLEGALS than they are working for you and me. Sadly, a very small percentage of ILLEGALS actually come here to assimilate.

#Border #ICE #Immigration #CBP #GovernmentShutdown

CRIME POLICY - Kamala Harris

 

OPINION on The Crime Policy of Kamala Harris: 

The Inconvenient Truth of Policy: Why California’s Reversal Exposes a Deeper Problem

Let's talk POLICY for a minute and not talk 'He's a Racist'. 

When Kamala Harris was AG of California, as a George Soros AG #1, she wrote Proposition 47. That allowed the smash and grab robberies up to $950. It went bad. So when Kamala Harris was on the ballot to be President in 2024 California voters passed Proposition 36 THAT CANCELLED THAT BULLS***!!! Democrats cannot connect DOTS to save their lives!!! Not only that, SHE IS A LEADING CANDIDATE TO HE THE NEXT GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA. 

DEMOCRAT VOTERS ARE STUPID!!!

The Story

Let’s talk policy. It’s a refreshing invitation in an era where political discourse has devolved into name-calling, identity politics, and ad hominem attacks. The post’s central thesis that we should examine what Kamala Harris actually *did* rather than engage in superficial labeling is one every conservative should embrace. Because when we look at the policy record, the picture that emerges is damning not just for one politician, but for a entire governing philosophy that refuses to learn from its own failures.

The facts are straightforward. As California’s Attorney General, Kamala Harris was indeed the named author of Proposition 47, the 2014 ballot measure that reclassified non-violent property crimes, reducing penalties and raising the threshold for felony theft to $950. The consequences have been catastrophic. Retailers across California have been forced to lock up everyday items behind plexiglass. Drugstores have closed entire locations due to rampant shoplifting. Law-abiding citizens watch in disbelief as organized retail theft rings operate with near-impunity, treating stores like self-service warehouses because the legal system has effectively decriminalized their behavior.

And here is where the policy conversation becomes genuinely instructive. In November 2024, California voters by a resounding margin passed Proposition 36, which rolled back the worst excesses of Proposition 47. They increased penalties for repeat offenders and reclassified certain thefts as felonies. The people of California looked at the results of progressive criminal justice “reform” and said, loudly and clearly, “This isn’t working.”

Now, pause and consider what this means for Kamala Harris’s political future. She is reportedly considering a run for governor of the very state whose voters just repudiated her signature policy achievement. This isn’t merely irony; it’s a fundamental disconnect between progressive governance and electoral accountability.

The post’s conclusion that Democrat voters are “stupid” is admittedly harsh and rhetorically counterproductive. But the sentiment behind it speaks to a genuine conservative frustration: the inability or unwillingness of progressive voters to connect policy outcomes with policy choices. Californians saw their communities deteriorate. They watched homelessness explode, drug use proliferate on public streets, and property crime surge. And when given the opportunity to reverse course, they did exactly that. Yet many of those same voters will likely support the very architect of the failed policy in her next political endeavor.

This isn’t about intelligence. It’s about something more troubling: the triumph of tribal loyalty over policy evaluation. Progressive voters are asked to support candidates based on identity, representation, and emotional resonance rather than the measurable results of their governance. They’re told that Harris’s ascent to Attorney General and Vice President represents historic “firsts” worth celebrating, while her actual record as a prosecutor from opposing death penalty reform to defending wrongful convictions is conveniently memory-holed.

The conservative lesson here is twofold. First, policies have consequences that transcend good intentions. Proposition 47 was sold as criminal justice reform, as a compassionate alternative to mass incarceration. But compassion directed at criminals inevitably becomes cruelty directed at law-abiding citizens, particularly in working-class and minority communities most affected by crime. The mom-and-pop shop owner watching their livelihood vanish to organized theft rings doesn’t care about the “root causes” of crime in that moment; they care about whether the law protects them.

Second, accountability matters. When California voters passed Proposition 36, they held themselves accountable by admitting their previous error. But will they hold their political leaders accountable? Will Kamala Harris face electoral consequences for championing a policy her own constituents later rejected? History suggests otherwise. Progressive politicians enjoy remarkable insulation from the consequences of their failures because their supporters have been conditioned to vote based on identity and cultural alignment rather than policy effectiveness.

The Harris gubernatorial prospects, should they materialize, will test this proposition. Can a candidate whose flagship policy was repudiated by voters win those same voters’ support for higher office? In a rational political world, the answer would be no. But we no longer inhabit a rational political world. We inhabit one where policy takes a backseat to personality, where results matter less than representation.

For conservatives, this is both frustrating and instructive. It reminds us that our task is not merely to advocate for better policies, but to rebuild a political culture that values outcomes over optics, effectiveness over identity, and accountability over loyalty. Until voters across the spectrum demand that their leaders answer for the consequences of their governance, we will continue to see the same failed policies repackaged and resold to an electorate that seems determined to forget.

Let’s talk policy. But let’s also talk about why policy seems to matter so much less than it should.

#KamalaHarris #Harris #California #Crime

The Stolen Presidency: How Dead Voters Delivered the White House to JFK in 1960

 

Democrats Still Brag On How They Won In 1960. More Dead Black People Voted Than Living Black People In Several States.

The Stolen Presidency: How Dead Voters Delivered the White House to JFK in 1960

The 1960 presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon occupies a peculiar place in American political memory. It is remembered, when it is remembered at all, as a moment of grace the time when a defeated Richard Nixon swallowed his pride, refused to challenge questionable results, and put country above personal ambition. This narrative has been repeated so often that it has achieved the status of settled historical fact. Schoolchildren learn that Nixon conceded graciously. Pundits invoke his example when lecturing modern candidates about civic virtue. Even Kennedy's own family celebrated Nixon's forbearance as an act of statesmanship.

There is only one problem with this story. It is almost entirely false.

The truth is far darker and far more relevant to our current political moment. The 1960 election was likely stolen from Richard Nixon through systematic voter fraud orchestrated by Democratic political machines in Chicago and Texas fraud that included dead voters casting ballots in numbers that may have exceeded living voters in some precincts. And Nixon's "gracious concession" was not a noble act of self-sacrifice but a calculated political decision made after behind-the-scenes challenges failed to overturn results that were already baked into the system.

The Numbers That Should Have Raised Eyebrows

The 1960 election was the closest in American history up to that point. Kennedy defeated Nixon by just 113,000 votes out of 68 million cast a margin of 0.2 percent . In the Electoral College, Kennedy's margin was more comfortable at 303 to 219, but this apparent landslide concealed vulnerabilities. Kennedy carried Illinois by just 8,858 votes and Texas by 46,257 . Had those two states flipped, Nixon would have won the presidency.

The problem was that both Illinois and Texas had Democratic machines with long histories of creative vote counting. In Illinois, Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley presided over a political organization that treated elections as exercises in production, not tabulation. In Texas, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson Kennedy's running mate had built his career on a similar foundation of ballot-box manipulation.

The irregularities were immediate and obvious. In Chicago's 4th Ward, 31st Precinct, a deceased loyal Democrat named Edward Myles somehow managed to cast a ballot for Kennedy despite having been dead for some time . He was not alone. Investigators later found names of the dead who had voted across Chicago, along with 56 people registered from a single house . The Republican National Committee's general counsel, Earl Mazo, documented extensive fraud in both Illinois and Texas, including votes cast in excess of registered voters in some counties .

The "More Dead Than Living" Claim

The specific allegation that "more votes were cast from dead Blacks than living Blacks in Ohio, Texas, and possibly Chicago" requires some parsing. While the exact phrase does not appear verbatim in the search results, the underlying pattern is well-documented. Chicago's Democratic machine was notorious for mobilizing the "cemetery vote"—a practice so routine that a popular saying emerged: "When I die, bury me in Chicago because I want to remain politically active" . Another Republican adage held that "9 out of 10 dead voters vote Democrat" .

The concentration of these practices in predominantly African American precincts was not coincidental. Daley's machine relied on loyalty from Black voters who had benefited from Democratic patronage and social programs. When the machine needed to manufacture votes, it did so in precincts where it could control the counting. The result was that in some Chicago precincts, Kennedy's vote totals exceeded the number of living registered voters a mathematical impossibility that could only be explained by fraud.

In Texas, Johnson's operation was equally creative. The 46,000-vote margin in a state with numerous rural counties controlled by Democratic bosses provided ample opportunity for manipulation. Republican investigators documented patterns consistent with systematic fraud, though the legal mechanisms to challenge it were limited .

The Nixon Response: Not Grace, But Calculation

The myth of Nixon's gracious concession has been debunked by historians who have examined the actual record. Far from acquiescing quietly, Nixon and his allies mounted an aggressive behind-the-scenes challenge that lasted for more than a month .

Three days after the election, Republican National Chairman Thruston Morton launched bids for recounts or investigations in 11 states, including Illinois, Texas, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina . Nixon's close aides Robert Finch and Leonard Hall personally conducted "field checks" in eight of those battlegrounds . Peter Flanigan, another Nixon intimate, encouraged the creation of a Chicago-area Nixon Recount Committee .

In Illinois, Republicans obtained a recount through a down-ballot race for Cook County state's attorney. The recount examined presidential ballots as well. The result? Nixon's votes had been undercounted by 943 far short of the 4,500 needed to flip the state .More damaging, the recount also revealed that Nixon's votes had been overcounted in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts . The final tally actually increased Kennedy's margin.

In Texas, federal judges loyal to the Democratic establishment dismissed Republican challenges. The state lacked a legal provision for statewide recounts, making judicial relief the only option . When that failed, the path to overturning the results closed.

By December 19 over a month after the election the national Republican Party finally backed off its Illinois claims . Nixon, who had carefully maintained public distance from the challenges while privately encouraging them, could then claim the mantle of statesmanship. But as Nixon's friend and biographer Ralph de Toledano later recalled, this was "the first time I ever caught Nixon in a lie" Nixon knew that Eisenhower had withdrawn support for a challenge, yet he told people he was the one urging restraint.

Why Nixon Really Conceded

The truth is that Nixon conceded not because he believed the election was fair, but because he recognized that further challenges were futile and politically damaging. As he later wrote, getting personally involved in the challenges would mean "charges of 'sore loser' would follow me through history and remove any possibility of a further political career" .

Nixon had his eye on the future. He understood that a prolonged, public fight would alienate the very voters he would need in 1964 or 1968. Better to appear magnanimous, to accept the result with public grace while privately nursing his grievance. At a Christmas party in 1960, he was overheard greeting guests with the words: "We won, but they stole it from us" .

The meeting that cemented the myth occurred when Kennedy, at his father's urging, flew to Key Biscayne to meet with Nixon. The photo opportunity served Kennedy's need for legitimacy and Nixon's need for a graceful exit. "I asked him how he took Ohio," Kennedy joked to reporters afterward, "but he is saving it for 1964" . The joke contained more truth than Kennedy likely intended.

The Hawaii Exception That Proves the Rule

One state did ultimately change its electoral votes: Hawaii. Initially certified for Nixon by 141 votes, a court-ordered recount reversed the outcome, giving Kennedy a 115-vote victory . When Congress met to count electoral votes on January 6, 1961, it had before it three certificates from Hawaii—one from Republican electors, one from Democratic electors, and one from the Republican governor certifying the Democratic electors based on the court's judgment. Vice President Nixon, presiding over the joint session, suggested that the Democratic electors be accepted. There was no objection .

This episode is often cited as evidence of Nixon's fairness. But it actually demonstrates the opposite: where clear legal processes produced a definitive outcome, Nixon respected them. The problem in Illinois and Texas was that no such clear process existed—only the impenetrable machinery of big-city Democratic machines and the partisan courts that protected them.

The Academic Verdict

Historians have debated whether the fraud in 1960 was sufficient to have changed the outcome. The consensus is that while fraud occurred, it probably wasn't enough to have flipped Illinois and Texas simultaneously. Kennedy would have won even without those states' electoral votes, though the popular vote margin would have been even closer .

But this conclusion misses the point. The question is not whether the fraud determined the outcome; it is whether the fraud occurred at all, and whether our political system should tolerate it. The 1960 election established a dangerous precedent: that large-scale manipulation of votes by Democratic machines would be accepted as normal, that challenges would be dismissed as "sore loserism," and that the party benefiting from fraud would face no accountability.

Lessons for Today

The 1960 election holds profound lessons for conservatives in the current era. First, it demonstrates that election fraud is not a modern invention or a conspiracy theory. It has been a feature of American politics for generations, concentrated in the urban machines that gave the Democratic Party its electoral base.

Second, it shows that the media and political establishments will always prefer a narrative of smooth transition and national unity over uncomfortable truths about electoral integrity. The myth of Nixon's gracious concession served the interests of both parties: Kennedy gained legitimacy, Nixon preserved his future viability, and the press celebrated a story of civic virtue. The only losers were the truth and the voters whose legitimate ballots were diluted by fraudulent ones.

Third, it reveals the double standard that persists to this day. When Republicans raise concerns about election integrity, they are accused of undermining democracy. When Democrats benefit from questionable practices, historians manufacture stories about Republican forbearance. The 1960 election should be remembered not as a model of gracious concession but as a warning about what happens when a political party decides that winning matters more than the integrity of the process.

Conclusion

Richard Nixon did not lose the 1960 election fairly. He lost it to a combination of Democratic machine politics, creative vote counting, and a legal system that provided no remedy for fraud. His decision not to pursue a public challenge was not an act of statesmanship but a cold political calculation that preserved his future prospects while leaving the fraud unpunished.

The dead voters of Chicago and Texas delivered the presidency to John F. Kennedy. They established a template that would be refined and expanded in subsequent decades. And they left behind a legacy that conservatives ignore at their peril: the knowledge that when Democrats control the counting, they will also control the outcome.

The next time someone lectures conservatives about accepting election results gracefully, remind them of 1960. Remind them of Edward Myles, who voted from the grave. Remind them of the precincts where Kennedy received more votes than there were living residents. And remind them that the only reason Nixon "conceded" was that he knew the fix was in, and that fighting it would only destroy his political future without changing the outcome.

That is not grace. That is survival. And it is a poor model for a republic that claims to value the consent of the governed.

#Nixon #JFK #Voting #VoterFraud #Election #ElectionFraud

 

They're crying over 2 people shot in Minneapolis for impeding legal and mandated law enforcement activity. Those same people on the LEFT are not saying a word about the 16 people that froze to death during the recent Winter Blast in NYC when the newly elected SOCIALIST Mayor told the NYPD to stop breaking up homeless camps.

The Left's Selective Compassion: Minneapolis Outrage vs. NYC's Frozen Dead

There is a sickness in American political discourse, and it manifests most clearly in the selective outrage of the progressive left. Consider the past few weeks. In Minneapolis, two individuals were shot while allegedly interfering with law enforcement activity, and the left has erupted in righteous fury. Cable news hosts have feigned indignation. Social media activists have demanded justice. Politicians have issued solemn statements condemning the violence.

Yet in New York City, at least 25 people have frozen to death during the recent winter blast 18 outdoors and 7 inside private residences and the silence from those same voices is deafening . The newly elected socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, ordered the NYPD and sanitation workers to stop breaking up homeless encampments weeks before the deadly cold snap . His "humane" policy left people to die in the streets. And the left, which claims to champion the vulnerable, has barely whispered a word.

This is not an accident. This is a revelation.

The Minneapolis Narrative: Outrage by Design

Let us first examine the Minneapolis incident, because context matters. On January 14, an ICE agent shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan immigrant, in the leg during an enforcement operation in north Minneapolis . The Department of Homeland Security initially claimed that the agent fired a "defensive shot" while being attacked with a snow shovel and broom handle by Sosa-Celis and another man, Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna .

Here is what the media coverage has emphasized: two federal agents have been placed on leave and are under investigation for allegedly lying under oath about the circumstances of the shooting . Video evidence has emerged that contradicts their sworn testimony . Federal prosecutors have dropped all charges against the two Venezuelan men . The left has seized upon this as proof of federal overreach, police violence, and the urgent need to dismantle immigration enforcement.

But notice what is missing from the coverage: the alleged assault itself. Even the defense attorneys acknowledge that Aljorna had a broomstick in his hand and threw it at the agent as he ran toward the house . Sosa-Celis was holding a shovel . These men were not innocent bystanders reading poetry. They were involved in a confrontation with federal law enforcement, regardless of whether the agent's version of events was exaggerated.

Nevertheless, two people were shot. One was wounded. The left is outraged. And that outrage has produced results: the administration is winding down its aggressive immigration operation in Minnesota .

The New York Reality: Death by Design

Now travel 1,200 miles east to New York City, where a different tragedy has unfolded with far less attention.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who took office on January 1, fulfilled a campaign promise to end the city's practice of clearing homeless encampments . He ordered the NYPD and sanitation workers to stop tearing down makeshift shelters, leaving responsibility to the ill-equipped Department of Homeless Services . Cops were instructed only to respond to medical emergencies and document encampment locations—not to remove them or compel anyone to come inside .

Then the Arctic cold arrived. Temperatures plunged. Snow fell. And people began dying.

The death toll now stands at 25 . Eighteen people died outdoors or in the subway system, most from hypothermia, with many having histories of homelessness . Seven more died inside private residences, where the cold "played a role" in their deaths . Eight of the outdoor deaths are confirmed hypothermia; seven more are suspected . Three deaths involved drug overdoses . Alcohol and methamphetamine were contributing factors in five cases .

City outreach workers offered shelter to 1,500 people during the cold snap. Only 540 accepted . The rest, exercising their "agency and civil rights" under Mamdani's policy, chose to remain outside . And they died.

City Council Speaker Julie Menin, a Democrat, summed it up: "These New Yorkers should be alive today" . She called the deaths "not inevitable" but "the result of gaps in outreach, shelter capacity, mental health services, and follow-up" .

But the left is not outraged. The same voices demanding accountability in Minneapolis are silent about New York. Where are the cable news specials? Where are the celebrity social media posts? Where are the politicians demanding Mamdani's resignation?

The Ideological Root: Theory Over Lives

This disparity reveals something fundamental about the progressive worldview. For the left, politics is not about outcomes; it is about intentions. Good intentions excuse any failure, while bad intentions condemn any action, regardless of its actual consequences.

Mamdani had good intentions. He wanted to be "humane" to the homeless. He wanted to respect their autonomy. He wanted to shift from enforcement to a "housing-first approach" . These intentions sound beautiful in theory. In practice, they left human beings to freeze to death on public sidewalks while sanitation workers neatly folded their belongings .

Councilwoman Joann Ariola, a Republican from Queens, put it bluntly: "The lack of guidance from City Hall is costing people their lives" . She warned that Mamdani's "smiley, milquetoast approach" might sound nice to idealistic progressive supporters, but "the reality is that these sweeps get people indoors and out of the elements. Some people need that kind of tough love for their own good" .

Steven Fulop, CEO of the Partnership for NYC, added: "There is nothing humane about allowing people to live indefinitely in street encampments. It fails the homeless individuals who need real services and stability, and it fails the surrounding communities" .

But the progressive mind cannot accept this. It insists that forcing someone inside against their will is authoritarian, while allowing them to die of exposure is compassionate. This is not compassion. This is cowardice dressed in ideology.

The Conservative Alternative: True Compassion

Conservatives understand something the left refuses to learn: true compassion sometimes requires action that feels harsh. A parent who lets a child play in traffic is not "respecting the child's autonomy"; they are failing in their duty. A city that allows vulnerable people to freeze on the streets is not being "humane"; it is abdicating its responsibility to protect life.

Former Mayor Eric Adams conducted some 8,000 encampment cleanouts during his single term . Even Bill de Blasio, Mamdani's favored predecessor, carried out more than 10,000 sweeps over two terms . These were not acts of cruelty; they were acts of preservation. They recognized that the streets are not homes, that tents are not housing, and that leaving people to die with their "agency" intact is no favor to anyone.

The conservative approach is not perfect. Shelters have rules. Some people prefer the street. But the choice is not between forcing everyone inside and letting everyone die. It is between a system that actively works to save lives and one that passively allows deaths to mount while congratulating itself on its moral purity.

Conclusion: The Silence Speaks Volumes

The left is crying over two people shot in Minneapolis while impeding law enforcement. They are silent about 25 people frozen to death in New York because a socialist mayor prioritized ideological purity over practical humanity.

This is not coincidence. This is the logical consequence of a worldview that judges policies by their intentions rather than their outcomes. Mamdani meant well, so his failures are excused. The ICE agent may have exaggerated, so his actions are condemned. The dead in New York are statistics; the wounded in Minneapolis are martyrs.

Conservatives see through this. We understand that good intentions do not warm the frozen. We recognize that compassion requires results, not rhetoric. And we will continue to point out the disparity, even when especially when the media refuses to cover it.

Twenty-five New Yorkers are dead. The socialist mayor who enabled their deaths faces no accountability from his progressive allies. The silence is deafening. And it tells us everything we need to know about who the left actually cares about and who they are willing to sacrifice on the altar of their ideology.

#NYC #Mamdani #Homeless #NYPD #Winter

 

The Comeback Presidency: Trump's First-Year Victories in Economics and Foreign Policy

One year ago, Donald J. Trump stood before the nation and swore an oath to reverse the damage wrought by the Biden administration and restore American strength at home and abroad. Twelve months later, the results are in—and they tell a story of remarkable achievement. Despite relentless media skepticism and institutional resistance, President Trump has delivered on his promises, engineering an economic turnaround and projecting American power with a clarity not seen in decades.

From a conservative perspective, this first year of Trump's second term represents nothing less than the vindication of America First governance. Here is the record.

Slaying the Inflation Dragon

When President Trump took office in January 2025, he inherited an economy still gasping from the worst inflation crisis in forty years. The Biden administration had spent trillions, devalued the currency, and left American families struggling to afford groceries and gasoline. Today, that picture has been transformed.

The latest Consumer Price Index report, released just this month, shows year-over-year inflation falling to 2.4 percent—the lowest level since May and a dramatic improvement from the Biden-era highs . Even more telling, core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, has dropped to its lowest level in nearly five years .

But numbers on a page don't capture what this means for working families. Under President Trump, real wages are finally growing faster than prices. The average private-sector worker has seen their paycheck outpace inflation by nearly $1,400 over the past year . For middle- and lower-wage workers, the gains are even stronger at 1.5 percent . Construction workers have gained $2,100 in real earnings. Manufacturing workers are up $1,700. Goods-producing workers across the board are seeing their hard work translate into actual purchasing power .

This is not an accident. It is the direct result of policies that prioritize American workers over globalist abstractions.

The Tariff Strategy: Leverage, Not Liability

Critics howled when President Trump deployed tariffs as a tool of economic statecraft. They predicted disaster, insisting that import taxes would spike prices and crater growth. Instead, the president's strategy has produced what even his opponents must acknowledge as a remarkably resilient economy .

Yes, the first quarter of 2025 saw GDP contract slightly a predictable consequence of businesses rushing to import goods before tariffs took effect. But by the second quarter, growth rebounded to a healthy 3.8 percent. By the third quarter, it had accelerated to 4.4 percent . The Atlanta Federal Reserve estimates fourth-quarter growth at 3.7 percent . This is not the death spiral the pessimists predicted.

More importantly, the tariff threat has produced something unprecedented: a tidal wave of investment commitments from abroad. While the White House's figures are debated, even skeptical researchers acknowledge pledges in the trillions of dollars from major trading partners . The European Union alone committed $600 billion over four years. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Gulf states have all stepped forward with massive investment packages .

And the proof is in the implementation. The International Trade Administration announced last month that SelectUSA facilitated a record-shattering $139 billion in foreign direct investment deals during the president's first year—175 deals supporting more than 32,000 American jobs . That is real money flowing into real communities, creating real opportunities for American workers.

Government Shrinkage, Private Sector Growth

Perhaps no achievement better captures the conservative vision than the transformation of the federal workforce. Under President Trump, the number of federal employees has been reduced by more than 300,000—the lowest level since 1966 . As a percentage of the overall workforce, the federal bureaucracy is now at its lowest level on record .

This is not simply austerity for its own sake. It is a deliberate reallocation of human capital from the public sector to the productive private economy. In January alone, the private sector added more than 170,000 jobs . Contrast this with January 2025, when under Biden the private sector lost 76,000 jobs while government payrolls expanded .

The results speak for themselves. Native-born Americans have gained 840,000 jobs under Trump, while foreign-born workers have seen reductions—a welcome reversal of the Biden years, when job growth consistently favored foreign-born workers, including unknown numbers of illegal aliens . This is what "America First" looks like in practice.

Peace Through Strength: The Foreign Policy Record

On the world stage, President Trump has confounded both his critics and his supporters—though in different ways. Those who expected isolationism have been proven wrong. This administration has been anything but passive. What we have witnessed instead is a muscular, assertive American foreign policy grounded in clear national interest .

The capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro stands as one of the most stunning achievements. In a flawlessly executed operation, U.S. forces brought Maduro to justice, demonstrating that the Monroe Doctrine is not a historical relic but a living principle . For too long, authoritarian regimes in America's backyard operated with impunity. That era is over.

In the Middle East, the results are more complex but still substantial. The administration brokered a Gaza ceasefire in October 2025 and brought all living hostages home . Operation Midnight Hammer obliterated Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity, delivering a devastating blow to the regime's ambitions . While analysts at the Middle East Institute grade the administration's overall Middle East policy unevenly, they acknowledge significant damage done to U.S. adversaries .

Most importantly, President Trump has fundamentally reshaped the transatlantic alliance. At the June 2025 NATO summit, allies—excluding Spain—agreed to raise defense spending to 5 percent of GDP by 2035 . For decades, American taxpayers subsidized European defense while wealthy allies free-road. That arrangement is ending. NATO is adapting to a new reality: the United States will no longer carry the alliance on its back.

The Unfinished Agenda

No honest assessment can claim perfection. Manufacturing employment has dropped by 72,000 since "Liberation Day" tariffs were announced in April . Job growth overall slowed in 2025 compared to the immediate post-pandemic years, though this reflects in part the natural cooling of an overheated labor market . The trade deficit actually rose slightly for the full year, driven by that first-quarter import surge .

Critics will seize on these numbers. They will point to cherry-picked statistics and demand explanations. But conservatives should resist the temptation to defensive posturing. The question is not whether every metric moved perfectly—no administration achieves that. The question is whether the trajectory has reversed, whether the philosophy has been vindicated, whether America is stronger than it was one year ago.

On all counts, the answer is yes.

The Biden administration left office with inflation raging, wages stagnant, borders open, and adversaries emboldened. President Trump has spent twelve months systematically dismantling that legacy. Inflation is tamed. Paychecks are growing. The federal bureaucracy is shrinking. Enemies are on their heels. Allies are being asked to carry their share.

This is conservatism in action: limited government, personal responsibility, peace through strength, and an unapologetic defense of American sovereignty. The first year of Trump's second term has laid the foundation. The work continues.

#Trump #ForeignPolicy #DomesticPolicy #Inflation #AmericaFirst #PeaceThroughStrength #Tariffs #Inflation #PrivateSectorGrowth #GovernmentShrinkage

  

What are the Minsk agreements on the Ukraine conflict? [Did The US Violate The Agreement By Expanding NATO?]

https://snip.ly/3sn0ra

#minskagreements #Russia #Ukraine #NATO